this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
378 points (90.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

32689 readers
464 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A lot of people point out that it doesn't make any sense that Harry and Ron didn't like their schoolwork. Well I figured out why:

It's because the magic system is just as boring in-universe as out of universe. It doesn't make any sense in universe either. Harry and Ron realised Rowling's magic system kinda stinks way before we did, because they spent all day learning it.

If Sanderson had been writing Harry Potter, then Harry and Ron would have liked learning magic as much as Hermione did (Also, Sanderson actually DID write a book about a super-school, it's called Skyward, it's good)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 117 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Eh, it's a good shower thought.

But I have to disagree overall. Both of them showed interest in various subjects; Harry more than Ron.

But, I think you're right that the magic system is boring. It's memorizing fiddly combinations of words and movements.

Rowling didn't really set out to write a magic series. She was writing a boarding school series with a magical background, so she never did any proper world building. What little there is came well after the movies exploded, and is largely cobbled together.

While not as well written, it has much closer ties to things like the Chronicle of Narnia than something like Sanderson's stuff. The magic is fluff, technobabble, not what the series is actually about.

If there had been sections set in muggle schools, Harry and Ron would have been roughly the same. Harry likely would have been interested in some subjects, but distracted by the real story, while Ron would have been kind of drifting along, getting by grade wise without being interested. Ron might have been semi into soccer, but have been whining about it not being as good as quiddich.

I would also argue that if Sanderson, or a similarly world building capable author, had taken on the story, there still would have been a gradation in the trio's academic focus. You take three kid characters and have them being exactly the same about something like that, it won't work; you'd end up having to completely hand wave it with references to them being great students because it's more boring to have them all be the same level of interest in any given thing.

Even among real world scholarly sorts, the levels of interest in a given subject aren't going to be exactly the same, and a lot of those kids tend to start their friendships because of the "nerd" factor. The HP trio became friends partially by accident, but stayed friends as they grew together and shared experiences, so the dynamics just aren't the same.

Even the last three books, where it seems like there's discovery of an underlying system to the magic, the deathly hallows are a mcguffin, not a genuine world building tool.

So, I get where you're coming from, and agree that she did a pretty crappy job of making a coherent magic system. But it didn't really need one, it just needed silly phrases for kids to geek out over, and that she did very well

[–] RichardDegenne@lemm.ee 36 points 2 weeks ago

Damn, you must take some pretty long showers!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 72 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

is this not just affirming the premise of the sixth book? that's the whole reason why Potter found the Prince's spells so fascinating. school subjects are not meant to entertain. they are meant to teach.

also, as book five attests--as well as does the subject of history of magic--some syllabi and some subjects were way more boring than others.

my main gripe would be that nobody taught english or any other form of formal communication at hogwarts. i dunno how they all just didn't end up speaking like Hagrid.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

I like the universes where being taught can also be fun. It has the funny side effect of making the pupil want to learn even more!

Fuck the universes that keep entertainment and learning separate.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 41 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

This is the one thing I really appreciated about the Discworld books on a recent re-read. The wizards are hilariously incapable of doing anything useful. Terry Pratchett doesn't give a super clear series of rules for the magic system but it's abundantly clear that the wizards are incapable of actually useful magic, and mostly just get too tired up in internal power struggles to ever do anything. And in the book Sourcery, the first sourcerer (one who can create new spells) to grace the disc takes over the world, realizes running the entire world is too stressful and tedious then creates his own pocket dimension to play with magic in instead (I'm oversimplifiing here, skipping over a bunch of interpersonal stuff related to a sentient wizard's staff run by a dead guy who tricked Death among other details but that's the general gist)

By making the wizards so useless it bypasses any of the logical problems posed by creating a world with magic in it. There's no "why no use this spell" "why not magic out of this problem" etc. all because the wizards are too useless to actually do anything

[–] philthi@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

The wizards series of the discworld books are by far my favourite, but for exactly the reason you've set out. (Similarly with the witches)

The dialogue between the faculty is so believable and so stupifyingly inane and political that it's hard to say that anything is more probable.

Anyone actually interested in how magic works gets ignored and all that really matters is where the next good meal is coming from.

Just one of the countless reasons that Terry pratchett is a gem of an author.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

One of the big ideas about magic in his universe isn’t just that the wizards are useless but that using magic is more trouble then it’s worth. It creates all sorts of left over magic residue that can build up to a myriad of effects.

We see the wizards preform powerful spells, showing that they can do have power and do have a certain degree of knowledge, but rather choose not to.

The duty of the wizards is more to make sure no one preforming magic willy nilly and to prevent people from making sorcerers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Rincewind isn't useless at most things, he's only useless at magic.

Esk is actually able to use magic to solve problems, because she's a precocious child and also female.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Stories don’t have to have “hard” magic systems to be good. I’m a big fan of the magical realism popular in Latin American fiction - where the magic is ambiguous and never quite explained at all.

The problem is the way that Rowling uses magic.

Rowling was clearly writing mystery novels, while lifting a lot of ideas for her setting from like The Worst Witch series. She uses magic spells like a Checkhov’s gun kind of thing, usually establishing whatever magical principle will save the day earlier in the novel. With a relatively self contained story, it works really well. Prisoner of Azkaban is one of her stronger books - the way that she sets up the mystery with the time turner as well as the stuff with Sirius Black, etc - because it’s very “clean” in this way. She introduces a bunch of new elements to her world, but they are all tied around supporting her story. This is good writing.

The problem is that Harry Potter books don’t work as an overarching story. It is abundantly clear that the Horcruxes and Deathly Hallows were not planned from the beginning. Rowling got to the last two books, realized that she needed to write some kind of ending, and then completely drove her plot off the rails.

You could say because she didn’t have an established magic system, it made it easier to drive off the rails, but really, it’s more that she’s competent at writing stand alone mystery novels (which really, that’s what books 1-4 are and they’re the best in the series for it) and not larger narratives. She doesn’t know how to convey the scope of a war, she doesn’t know how to tie together an Epic fantasy.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It says a lot about Rowling that Hermionesl's one flaw was being an abolitionist

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I love Brandon Sanderson, but his world building and complex magic systems aren't for most people. I've tried to get my wife to read his stuff for years and she just has never gotten into it.

The reason Harry Potter was so commercially successful is because the vast majority of the public doesn't want to learn about allomantic properties of 16 different metals and how they have internal/external, physical/mental, enhancement/temporal and pushing/pulling effects.

They don't want to learn about adhesion, gravitation, division, abrasion, progression, illumination, transformation, cohesion, and tension surges - and how bonding a spren through oathes increases your ability to surgebind. Their eyes glaze over when talking about the cognitive and physical realms.

Most people just want to hear "yeah some people are magic and can wave wands, say some magic words and poof magic happens." That's why it's one of the highest-grossing media franchises of all time.

But yeah, I've just learned to accept that while I love some Sanderson magic systems, it's not ever gonna be for everyone. And that's ok.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What's boring about the magic system in Harry Potter? Can you give specific examples?

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 47 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)
  • No limits on how often you can cast spells
  • No explanation of how magic actually works
  • No explanation of how magic objects are created
  • No explanation of how spells are invented
  • No explanation of how different species' magic differs
  • All the spell names are silly words in English and poorly understood Latin
  • Never explained why incantations or gestures are needed
  • Never explained what makes spells other than Patronus hard or easy
  • Never explained what makes a wizard powerful other than "they learned a lot of spells"
  • Few/no limitations on spells, or limitations aren't explained
  • No contextually dependent spells
  • It's impossible to predict what will happen in the books based on understanding the magic system
  • There are just. no. rules.

Brandon Sanderson is the best magic system writer in the world, and these are his "laws of magic" for creating an interesting magic system:

The First Law

Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.

The Second Law

Sanderson’s Second Law can be written very simply. It goes like this: Limitations > Powers
(Or, if you want to write it in clever electrical notation, you could say it this way: Ω > | though that would probably drive a scientist crazy.)

The Third Law

The third law is as follows: Expand what you already have before you add something new.

Rowling never follows these principles. The reader doesn't understand the magic, magic is rarely given sensical limitations we understand, and Rowling always adds new stuff instead of explaining what we already have.

I posit that the answers to all these questions I listed just don't exist. There is no explanation. Hermione does well in school because she rote memorises. Harry and Ron can't engage with the material in their homework because they don't understand it because nobody does.

What Harry Potter's magic system, insofar as it exists, does do well, is vibes. It feels like a wondrous magic system. That's what sold books. Harry likes all the vibes stuff in the books, like the spooky castle, fighting evil, being a strong wizard. He doesn't understand any of the magical theory, because it doesn't exist.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 37 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Harry Potter has a soft magic system - a system where pretty much everything can be explained by "a wizard did it", worlds like that are mystical and lawless (see also Lord of the Rings)

it seems you enjoy more hard magic systems like you described above, where the rules are explained, and you can more or less understand why things work the way they do (see also Earthsea by U.K. Le Guin or ATLA)

the hard/soft scale is not perfect, but it gives you a rough gist of what to expect

writers aren't limited to just one either! Percy Jackson has a soft magic system, a lot of "a ~~wizard~~ god did it!", where Kane Chronicles has a strict magic system bound by understandable rules (with only gods and divine interventions going above the rules)

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No, I like soft magic systems when they're good. Take Star Wars. It's so soft. It's so soft that when GL introduced midichlorians to try and make it hard, everyone hated it.

The Force is good because it represents a certain philosophy. It's basically the Tao. Everything the Force can do is thematically appropriate and serves to teach us the philosophies of the Jedi, the Sith, and the other force users. The light side is harmony and believing in yourself. The dark side is domination and corruption. All the force powers support these themes and illustrate the force users embodying their philosophical beliefs in the world. Obi-Wan uses mind tricks because he believes in nonviolent misdirection. Palpatine uses lightning because he believes in ultimate power.

Rowling's magic system means... Magic. It's there to convince us that this fantasy world is magic. The Force can break Sanderson's laws because it means something more than just magic. It's philosophically consistent, and that's more important than being internally consistent. Rowling's magic only relates to Rowling's magic, so it needs to be internally consistent to work. And it isn't, so it doesn't.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

yeah that's fair. don't get me wrong i wasn't trying to convince you to like Harry Potter's magic system, but you quoted "lack of rules" as a something you disliked about it so i gave a short explanation as to why that specific thing isn't what makes HP's magic feel shallow

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] guy@piefed.social 34 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Never explained what makes a wizard powerful other than "they learned a lot of spells"

This obviously relates to the amount of midi-chlorians the wizard have

[–] teft@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Do terrestrial wizards have midichlorians the same way space wizards do?

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 weeks ago

You know what? Rowling did actually follow Sanderson's laws with one specific bit of magic. The time turner. The time turner has a very simple limitation: you cannot change the past. But, you can do things in the past that don't change what you experienced the first time. We understand how the time turner works, and Rowling comes up with a clever way to make it work, which makes sense to us. That's the second and first law! The time turner is well written!

And then she broke the third rule. She didn't expand on it, she added something new in book 4 instead. So people asked "what about the time turner", and in the next book she got mad and destroyed them all so she'd never be asked "what about the time turner" again.

Rowling wrote something really interesting that actually makes sense. And then decided she didn't want it in her story anymore. Because Rowling doesn't actually like writing interesting magic. And that's why Harry and Ron aren't very interested in magic. Rowling was never able to write a scene where a character actually geeks out about how magic works, because she doesn't care how it works. She's not interested.

[–] theskyisfalling@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 weeks ago

Sanderson is such a beast, everything he has written that I've read is solid gold!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Nothing memorable enough to mention.

[–] captainWhatsHisName@lemm.ee 24 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Maybe you would like that fan fiction Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. A large part of it is poking fun at how magic works and how wizards behave and how dumb Quidditch is.

For example there are all kinds of rules about Transfiguration that don’t make sense and that is explored quite a bit.

https://hpmor.com/

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I do love how it feels very much like a parody but turns into an honestly straight up good story on its own

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

NECROMANCY!?

I'm a member of the College of Winterhold, In good stead.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheresNodiee@lemm.ee 19 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

There's nothing wrong with the magic system because there's always a reasonable setup and payoff for what can be done with magic and solutions never come out of nowhere as some deus ex machina. The magic system the stories had worked perfectly fine for the stories that were being told. Not every magic system has to be some stupid overly explained BS that takes all of the actual wonder and "magic" out of it.

Rowling is a piece of shit terf but you Sanderson cultists are still so fucking annoying. There's more to magic in storytelling than just the exact, specific mechanics of how it works. Read Earthsea.

[–] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

I'm sorry, no Deus ex machina? Am I misremembering the bit where suddenly two wizards casting a spell at each other at the same time for a prolonged duration reverses cause and effect and makes dead people come back as ghosts to give the protagonist advice?

I can agree that stories don't need a "good" magic system, but I also feel like HP has glaring holes in places that negatively affect the experience. It's still a fun story, but I definitely think it could be better if the magic made more sense.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My issue is honestly just the inconsistency of when spells would work or wouldn't. That and the fact that many dangerous situations could have been ended immediately if they used a spell they knew. I watched the movies and was yelling at the screen to use a certain spell to solve the situation but they just run away scared and helpless.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

I'm currently going though the books and from what I can tell, Harry especially takes issues with some teachers. He hates history and doesn't understand divination but he's fine with charms, defense against the dark arts and even potions once Snape no longer teaches it.

It's just that during the lessons she describes, they usually have stuff like Quidditch or Voldemort stuff going on so they don't really pay attention. They also don't like doing homework so they let Hermione do it for them. And they still did pretty well on the OWLs so all in all, I think they were fine with class but by and large, she just doesn't really write about classes that went their regular course.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Just like all the worst real-world school subjects, her magic system isn’t something with a logic you can learn to understand, it’s something arbitrary you have to memorize. These poor kids are out here taking the equivalent of anatomy classes all day (why is that bone called the tibia? Don’t worry about it, just memorize it).

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

She made Hermione after herself. She needed the boys to be bad at magic or Hermione couldn't save them. If they were bad because magic was that hard, that would make her a genius, which wasn't what she was going for. The magical system was lame and the boys were bad at it because they were just unobservant undriven "boys". It's likely a combination of her worldview she's painting and trying to set the stage that magic is everywhere and all around us and everybody can do it but they don't just know exactly how.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago

I think magic went through a dark age in the HP universe, where all the words that were imbued with power were done so aeons ago, and then that knowledge of how they came to be was lost, with only a few handful having been rediscovered in the modern era.

Exceptions like "Point me" might just be english analogs of existing spells, rather than new inventions.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's literally just memorizing bad latin, of course they were bored. There was no spiritual aspect to it at all

Edit: And don't think I forgot the time JK Rowling assumed a word meant "Friendly to thieves" because it was of African Origin when it actually meant "The Color Red in a spiritual context.", racist assclown

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Or they're just lazy? 🤔

[–] illi@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Not any more than your average school kid I'd say. There are many subjects that are or can be interesting that are thought in schools, but can be taught in the most boring way. They enjoyed DADA with Lupin quite much for example.

There are also other subjects not related to practicing magic directly.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, book 3 is the one where Rowling made an effort to delve into the workings of the magic system. The Patronus is the only spell we actually learn how to cast. (No, levio-sah doesn't count). The time turner has limitations which allow Rowling to tell an interesting story with it.

Rowling made magic interesting for one book, and Harry became interested in magic.

Then she changed her mind.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

It's also not surprising the conservative rat hates history even though it should be one of the most important subject when dealing with the setting's hitler.

[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Brandon. Look up Mistborn. Steelheart and The Stormlight Archives are good too.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›